Catalog
See full images - free registration
Continue with Google - no registration!
or register with email
Why register? Just to keep bots out of our catalog. Your email stays private - we will never share it or send you anything uninvited. We guarantee you that!
1 Uncia Telamon?
| Issuer | Uncertain Etruscan mint |
|---|---|
| Year | 301 BC - 201 BC |
| Type | Log in to see details |
| Value | Log in to see details |
| Currency | Log in to see details |
| Composition | Log in to see details |
| Weight | Log in to see details |
| Diameter | 23 mm |
| Thickness | Log in to see details |
| Shape | Log in to see details |
| Technique | Log in to see details |
| Orientation | Log in to see details |
| Engraver(s) | Log in to see details |
| In circulation to | Log in to see details |
| Reference(s) | Log in to see details |
| Obverse description | Heavily worn and encrusted bronze flan of irregular outline, characteristic of Etruscan cast or hammered coinage. The obverse presents a design rendered in low relief, now largely obscured by corrosion and patination, consistent with the known typology of Etruscan uncia issues from this period. The abbreviated mint legend TLAM, tentatively associated with the Etruscan coastal city of Telamon, appears in the field. The overall execution reflects the archaic, provincial style typical of Central Italian bronze coinages of the 3rd century BC. |
|---|---|
| Obverse script | Log in to see details |
| Obverse lettering | TLAM (Translation: [Telamon?]) |
| Reverse description | Log in to see details |
| Reverse script | Log in to see details |
| Reverse lettering | Log in to see details |
| Edge | Log in to see details |
| Mint | Log in to see details |
| Mintage | Log in to see details |
| Additional information |
The so-called "Telamon" designation for this series remains debated — some scholars tie it to the Battle of Telamon in 225 BC, where a Roman-led force crushed a Gaesatae-led Gallic coalition in Etruria, theorizing that nearby mints struck emergency or victory-related issues in the aftermath. That connection is unproven and contested. What is clearer is that the issuing authority remains genuinely unresolved, with attributions spread across several Etruscan centers depending on which catalog you trust.
Haeberlin's die studies remain the most rigorous framework for this group, though the corpus is small enough that new specimens still shift the picture.